coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Kharkiv.
6.  On 14 June 2001 criminal proceedings against the applicant were instituted for hooliganism.
7.  On 30 July 2001 the applicant was placed under an undertaking not to abscond.
8.  On 1 August 2001 the applicant was committed for trial.
9.  On 7 September 2001 the Chervonozavodsky District Court of Kharkiv (“the Chervonozavodsky Court”) found the case ready for examination.
10.  On 24 September 2001 the President of the Chervonozavodsky Court allowed the applicant’s request to remove a judge in her case.
11.  On 4 December 2001 the President of the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) changed the case’s territorial jurisdiction and referred it to the Zhovtnevy District Court of Kharkiv (“the Zhovtnevy Court”).
12.  On 25 December 2001 the Zhovtnevy Court remitted the case to the Chervonozavodsky District Prosecutor’s Office for additional investigation.
13.  On 12 June 2002 the Court of Appeal upheld this ruling with minor changes.
14.  On 5 August 2002 the additional investigation was completed and the case was referred to the Zhovtnevy Court.
15.  On 30 September 2002 the Zhovtnevy Court remitted the case to the Chervonozavodsky District Prosecutor’s Office for additional investigation.
16.  On 26 November 2002 the Court of Appeal quashed this decision and remitted the case for renewed consideration to the first instance court.
17.  On 29 April 2003 the Zhovtnevy Court found the case ready for examination.
18.  On 27 June 2003 the Zhovtnevy Court adjourned the proceedings untill 26 August 2003 due to the prosecutor’s absence.
19.  On 13 June 2006 the Zhovtnevy Court found the applicant guilty of hooliganism and sentenced her to three years’ suspended imprisonment. The applicant was exempted from serving her sentence since the charges against her had become time-barred.
20.  On 31 October 2006 and 17 January 2008 the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, upheld the judgment.
21.  Throughout the pre-trial investigation and the trial proceedings the applicant lodged some 211 complaints, motions, petitions, requests and appeals. She mainly complained about allegedly unlawful actions of the investigative authorities, the prosecutor’s office and the judges who considered her criminal case and challenged the procedural decisions taken by them. In particular, the applicant lodged 30 motions challenging the judge who considered her case, 5 motions challenging the prosecutor.
22.  In the course of the trial proceedings some nineteen hearings were adjourned since the court had to consider numerous requests, motions, petitions and complaints lodged by the applicant. Five adjournments were due to the applicant’s or her lawyer’s absence or the applicant’s requests for adjournment. Four hearings were adjourned on account of witnesses’ or victims’ failures to appear. Eleven hearings were adjourned since the judge was involved in other proceedings, and one hearing was adjourned on account of the judge’s illness.
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Novoaltaysk, a town in the Altay Region.
5.  In 2003 the applicant sued the Government and the Ministry of Finance for liquidation of Soviet bonds issued in 1982.
6.  On 30 June 2003 the Novoaltaysk Town Court of the Altay Region awarded the applicant 6,635,348.50 Russian roubles (RUB). This judgment became binding on 18 July 2003 but was not enforced immediately.
7.  The Ministry of Finance lodged a supervisory-review appeal, and on 10 February 2004 the Presidium of the Altay Regional Court quashed the judgment. The Presidium found that the District Court had misinterpreted material law and, in particular, had ignored the rule saying that the Soviet bonds could have been liquidated only after their ulterior conversion into Russian special-purpose debentures. The Presidium concluded that since until then no such conversion had been made, and since the yearly budget had had no allocations for the liquidation of the bonds, the District Court had effectively replaced itself for the body competent to make the conversion and thus overstepped its authority.
8.  In 2003–04 the applicant also instituted a number of proceedings against high ranking State ofﬁcials. These proceedings were refused or stayed because of the applicant’s failure to comply with procedural requirements.
5.  The first applicant was born in 1937; the second applicant was born in 1958. They live in Pervomaysk, Mykolaiv region, Ukraine.
6.  On 22 June 1999 the Pervomaysk Court awarded the first applicant 1,410.85 [1]Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) in salary arrears against the Pervomaysk State department for education.
7.  On 2 August 1999 the same court awarded the first applicant UAH 324.34[2] in compensation for recreation leave allowance against the same defendant.
8.  On 22 June 1999 the Pervomaysk Court awarded the second applicant UAH 794.60[3] in salary arrears against the Pervomaysk State department for education. On 2 August 1999, the same court awarded the second applicant UAH 274[4] in compensation for recreation leave allowance against the same defendant.
9.  In December 2003, the Mykolaiv Regional Department of Justice informed the applicants that the judgments in their favour could not be enforced due to lack of the funds in the State budget, and the property of the debtor could not be attached since it was a public institution.
10.  The judgments given in favour of the applicants remain unenforced.
4.  The applicant is a private limited liability company with its registered office in Žilina.
5.  On 1 June 1995 the applicant filed an action with the Žilina District Court. It sued eight persons for a sum of money on grounds of unjust enrichment.
6.  On 20 November 1998 the case was transferred to the Čadca District Court and on 22 August 2001 to the Martin District Court upon decisions of the Žilina Regional Court as to bias on the part of judges.
7.  Subsequently, the Martin District Court obtained further evidence including expert opinions, delivered several procedural decisions and held four hearings. On 21 April 2008 it delivered a judgment. The parties appealed and in August 2008 the applicant informed the Court that the proceedings were still pending.
8.  On 5 April 2006 the Constitutional Court (Third Chamber) found that the Martin District Court had violated, and that the District Courts in Žilina and in Čadca had not violated, the applicant’s right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay.
9.  The Constitutional Court held that the case was complex in that expert evidence had to be adduced and related proceedings had been pending. The applicant company by its conduct had contributed to the length of the proceedings. The Martin District Court had failed to proceed in an appropriate manner and was responsible for delays totalling 16 months.
10.  The Constitutional Court awarded SKK 40,000 (the equivalent of 1,066 euros at that time) to the applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the Martin District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant’s legal costs.
5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Mionica.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  On 7 November 2001 the applicant, a bus conductor, was dismissed by his employer, “Lasta Strela”, a transportation company based in Valjevo.
8.  On 24 December 2001 he filed a claim with the Municipal Court in Valjevo (“the Municipal Court”), seeking reinstatement and payment of salary arrears.
9.  Following a remittal of 14 April 2003, the next hearing in the case was scheduled by the Municipal Court for 27 September 2004.
10.  Of the nine separate hearings scheduled between 27 September 2004 and 26 January 2006, it would appear that four were adjourned whilst five were held. As regards the former, two hearings were adjourned because the respondent and/or several witnesses had not been duly summoned and the other two because witnesses, of whom two were proposed by the applicant, had, though duly summoned, failed to appear in court (for which omission they were ultimately fined).
11.  On 27 January 2006 the Municipal Court ruled against the applicant.
12.  On 25 April 2006 the applicant was served with this judgment.
13.  On 3 May 2006 the applicant filed an appeal with the District Court in Valjevo (“the District Court”).
14.  On 18 December 2006 the District Court returned the case file to the Municipal Court, requesting it to submit certain missing documents.
15.  On 29 March 2007 the District Court upheld the judgment rendered at first instance.
16.  On 3 April 2008 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law (revizija).
4.  The applicants were born in 1924, 1932, 1940, 1949, 1946, 1944, 1937 and 1934 respectively and live in different cities in Turkey.
5.  On various dates, the applicants inherited or bought plots of land and properties near the coasts in different parts of Turkey, namely in Çanakkale, Şarköy, Izmir, Mudanya and Seferihisar. Some of the applicants constructed houses or operated commercial entities on their land.
6.  On different dates, the Treasury requested from the competent courts of first instance to determine whether the applicants’ properties were located within the coastal strip. A group of experts appointed by the courts inspected the plots of land and any existing buildings on them and concluded that they were located within the coastline area.
7.  Following the conclusion of the expert reports, the Treasury brought actions before the relevant courts, requesting the annulment of the applicants’ title deeds to the land and the properties, on the ground that they were located within the coastal area.
8.  On various dates, the courts of first instance upheld the request of the Treasury and annulled in full the applicants’ title deeds in application nos. 23953/05, 37166/05, 19638/06 and 17654/07, whereas the title deeds in the remaining two applications were partially annulled. In their decisions, the courts held that, pursuant to domestic law (the Coastal Law of 1990), the coasts could not be subject to private ownership and that, therefore, the applicants could not rely on the argument that they had acted bona fides or on the fact that they had constructed buildings on the plots of land.
9.  Appeals by the applicants against these judgments were dismissed by the Court of Cassation. Some of the applicants’ requests for rectification of the judgments were also rejected by that court.
10.  In application no. 23953/05 the applicant brought an action for damages in the Şarköy Civil Court of First Instance on account of his loss of ownership and the demolition of four shops located on the land. On 28 October 2003 the Şarköy Civil Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s action on the ground that, inter alia, the State was not liable for the damage resulting from the cancellation of the registration of the property in issue. The applicant appealed. In a judgment of 24 September 2004 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment. A rectification request by the applicant was further dismissed by the Court of Cassation on 17 March 2005.
The details concerning the six applications are indicated in the table below:
 
 
 

Application no. and date of lodging
Name of the applicants
Name of court and date of decision 
Date of final decision of Court of Cassation
Date of notification of final decision of Court of Cassation
16858/05
(15.4.2005)
Necdet Terzioğlu
Selma Fatma Terzioğlu
4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Ostrów Mazowiecka.
5.  On 9 November 1992 the applicant lodged with the Ostrów Mazowiecka District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a claim for payment against his ex-employer, a construction company.
6.  On the same day the case file was sent to the Warszawa District Court which was competent to deal with the subject-matter.
7.  The first hearing was scheduled for 22 February 1993. It did not take place because on 21 December 1992 the Warszawa District Court stayed the proceedings due to the fact that on 3 December 1992 winding-up proceedings had been instituted against the defendant.
8.  On 5 April 1994 the applicant’s claim was entered on the list of claims (lista wierzytelności).
9.  On 27 May 1994 the Warszawa District Court refused to resume the proceedings.
10.  On 18 September 2000 the Warszawa District Court was informed that the winding-up proceedings had been discontinued.
11.  The proceedings were resumed on 6 April 2001. On the same day the case was joined to similar claims lodged against the defendant, and registered under a new reference number. The court adjourned the trial until 1 February 2002.
12.  It appears that between the date when the proceedings were resumed and the day on which the first-instance judgment was given, no hearing took place. The trial was adjourned 11 times on procedural grounds, such as, for example, the appointment of the defendant’s curator then its liquidator, and the need to supplement the evidence and to appoint an expert.
13.  On 24 July 2006 the Warszawa District Court, following the applicant’s motion, appointed a lawyer for the applicant.
14.  On 31 October 2006 the Warszawa District Court gave judgment and discontinued the proceedings in respect of the applicant.
15.  On 18 December 2006 the applicant’s lawyer lodged an appeal. It was rejected by the Warszawa District Court on 9 February 2007 on procedural grounds, i.e. failure to pay the so-called “basic court fee” (opłata podstawowa).
16.  On 6 December 2006 the applicant lodged with the Warszawa Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) a complaint under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”) which entered into force on 17 September 2004. The applicant sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Warszawa District Court had been excessive.
17.  On 25 January 2007 the Warszawa Regional Court dismissed his complaint. The court examined the course of the impugned proceedings and held that there had been no delays for which the Warszawa District Court could be held responsible, although it admitted that the proceedings had been lengthy.
18.  On 26 February 2007 the Warszawa Regional Court rejected the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 25 January 2007 as inadmissible in law.
4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Volsk, a town in the Saratov Region.
5.  In 2001–2006 the applicant participated in three actions.
6.  In his ﬁrst action the applicant applied to a court for the status as a Chernobyl victim. On 4 December 2002 the Volsk Town Court rejected this claim. The applicant did not lodge an ordinary appeal against this judgment.
7.  In his second action the applicant sued his former employer, the Tax Police, for an extension of his working record, which would result in an increase of his pension. On 4 February 2004 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Saratov obliged the defendant to formally include in the applicant’s working record his employment preceding the service in the Tax Police. This judgment became binding on 20 February 2004, but the Tax Police failed to update the applicant’s working record. The applicant sought the assistance of bailiffs in the enforcement of this award, but on 4 November 2004 bailiffs stopped the enforcement proceedings because in July 2004 the Tax Police had been disbanded.
8.  In his third action the applicant resubmitted his previous claim against the successor of the Tax Police – the Saratov Regional Police. He asked to formally include in his working record his employment preceding the service in the Tax Police. On 27 May 2005 the Frunzenskiy District Court of Saratov granted this claim, and obliged the defendant to formally include in the applicant’s working record his employment preceding the service in the Tax Police and to recalculate his pension accordingly. This judgment became binding on 18 July 2005.
9.  On the Regional Police’s request, the President of the Saratov Regional Court applied for a supervisory review of this judgment. The supervisory-review hearing was ﬁxed for 3 April 2006. According to the Government, on 21 March 2006 the court mailed to the applicant a summons and left a telephone message with his wife.
10.  On 3 April 2006 the Presidium of Regional Court quashed the judgment on the ground that the courts below had misinterpreted material laws. This hearing was chaired by the President of the Regional Court. The applicant was absent from this hearing.
4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Dushanbe, a city in Tajikistan.
5.  At the material time the applicant was a colonel of the Russian Border Guard Service. In 1996 he requested an early discharge for health reasons. Under domestic law, long-serving servicemen in need of better housing (the applicant met these conditions) could be discharged against their will only if the command provided them with such housing. When asking for discharge, the applicant specified that he wished to receive the housing.
6.  Since no housing was provided, the applicant sued his command. On 21 January 1998 the Military Court 10514 ordered the Director of the Border Guard Service to discharge the applicant with the provision of housing in Russia, and to pay 7,000 Russian roubles (RUB) by way of non-pecuniary damages. This judgment became binding on 31 January 1998.
7.  From March 1998 to August 2006 the command offered the applicant flats in Vyazma (Smolensk Region), Kursk (Kursk Region), Kovrov (Vladimir Region), Galich (Kostroma Region), Voronezh (Voronezh Region), and Krasnodar (Krasnodar Region). The applicant rejected these offers because he wished to receive a flat in Tver.
8.  For this reason, the applicant once again sued his command. On 8 February 2002 the Military Court of Garrison 109 ordered the Director of the Border Guard to discharge the applicant with the provision of housing in Russia and to pay RUB 5,000 by way of non-pecuniary damages. This judgment became binding on 16 April 2002 after the appeal court had upheld it having specified that the housing should be provided in Tver.
9.  In October 2006, December 2006, and June 2007 the command offered the applicant three flats in Tver. The applicant rejected these offers because he considered that the command should have first satisfied his claims for other benefits, and because he disliked the flats’ characteristics.
5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Kyiv.
6.  On 30 November 2006 the applicant was apprehended by the police in Kyiv under the international arrest warrant issued by the General Prosecutor’s Office of Belarus.
7.  On 1 December 2006 the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv ordered the applicant’s detention for forty days pending an official request for his extradition to Belarus and in order to effect his transfer to the law enforcement authorities of Belarus.
8.  On 4 December 2006 the applicant appealed against the decision of 1 December 2006. He contended that the first instance court had not taken into account his state of health and the fact that he, together with his wife and three minor children, had been residing in Ukraine for a long period of time, and that the court had not examined the applicant’s submissions concerning his political persecution in Belarus.
9.  On 7 December 2006 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 1 December 2006. It held that the first instance court had duly taken into account the applicant’s state of health. However, it took the view that his family situation was irrelevant for the case and that the applicant’s allegations of political persecution in Belarus were unsubstantiated.
10.  On 8 December 2006 the Deputy Prosecutor of the Republic of Belarus submitted an official request to the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine, seeking the applicant’s extradition to Belarus.
11.  By letter of 25 December 2006 the Deputy Prosecutor General of Ukraine informed the Belarusian Deputy Prosecutor General that the applicant would not be extradited on the ground that, under Ukrainian law, the charges against the applicant did not carry imprisonment.
12.  On 27 December 2006 the applicant was released from detention.
4.  The applicants were born in 1951 and 1954 respectively and live in Istra, a town in the Moscow Region.
5.  Following their renunciation of Russian citizenship in 2000, the applicants were engaged in three actions against the police.
6.  On 28 March 2003 the Istra Town Court awarded each applicant against the Police Passport Service 410.75 Russian roubles (RUB) for non-pecuniary damage and costs caused by the Service’s refusal to issue identity and residence papers. This judgment became binding on 8 April 2003 and was enforced on 9 October 2006.
7.  On 15 October 2003 the Justice of the Peace of Circuit 61 of the Istra District awarded each applicant against the Police Passport Service RUB 505 for non-pecuniary damage and costs caused by defamation. This judgment became binding on 16 October 2003 and was enforced on 9 October 2006.
8.  On 2 December 2003 the Justice of the Peace of Circuit 61 of the Istra District awarded the second applicant against the Police Passport Service RUB 5,000 for costs. This judgment became binding on 13 December 2003 and was enforced on 9 October 2006.
9.  On 6 December 2006 the awards were adjusted for the cost of living, and on 22 June 2007 the sum of the adjustment was paid to the applicants.
10.  In separate proceedings that lasted from February 2005 to December 2005 the applicants challenged in courts a bailiff’s return of enforcement papers.